[97130] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ULA BoF
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Sat Jun 2 11:07:23 2007
In-Reply-To: <845679F4-1449-4C66-8504-8E33465842FB@cisco.com>
Cc: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 17:05:50 +0200
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 2-jun-2007, at 1:27, Fred Baker wrote:
> But ULAs *do* require router magic. They require a policy to be in
> place that causes them to not be advertised unless the policy is
> overridden, and a policy that doesn't believe them even if they are
> mistakenly advertised.
Well, there is no such thing as an out-of-the-box BGP configuration,
so that's to be expected.
Although ISPs tend to let packets with RFC 1918 source addresses slip
out from time to time, they're actually pretty good at rejecting RFC
1918 routes: currently, route-views.oregon-ix.net doesn't have the
10.0.0.0, 172.16.0.0 or 192.168.0.0 networks in its BGP table (there
are two entries for 192.0.2.0, though). So in IPv4 the magic is of
sufficiently quality.
